Village 13 Project’s Global Response R1: Carbon Offsets · 2020. 8. 18. · Global Response R1: Carbon Offsets This response addresses comments received on the 2019 Recirculated

Village 13 Project’s Global Response R1:

Carbon Offsets

Response to Comments – 2019 Recirculated Draft EIR

Otay Ranch Resort FEIR County of San Diego

GPA04-003; SP04-002; REZ04-009; TM5361A and B; ER LOG 04-19-005 August 2020

Global Response R1: Carbon Offsets

This response addresses comments received on the 2019 Recirculated Portions of the Draft Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) stating that the Otay Ranch Resort Village – Village 13 (proposed Project or Project)

has not sufficiently demonstrated that the carbon offsets required by mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and

M-GCC-8 would effectively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The referenced mitigation measures

require the Project to reduce its estimated construction and operational GHG emissions to net zero

(following the implementation of environmental design considerations (EDCs) and mitigation measures M-

GCC-1 through M-GCC-6 for the reduction of GHG emissions through on-site strategies), so that the

Project results in no net increase above the existing emissions level (which conservatively is assumed to be

zero), through the purchase of carbon offsets.

In light of those comments, this response provides additional information regarding carbon offsets and the

carbon registries that oversee the environmental integrity of offsets through measured substantive and

procedural standards; sets forth substantial evidence regarding the additionality, availability, effectiveness

and temporal duration of the mitigation obligation; and, describes how use of carbon offsets is not in

violation of the County of San Diego General Plan.

On June 12, 2020, the Fourth District Court of Appeal published its decision in Sierra Club v. County of

San Diego (Case No. D075478), which addressed, in relevant part, standards for adequate carbon offsets

mitigation under CEQA. In response to that decision’s holdings, mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-

GCC-8 have been refined, augmented and strengthened in rigor to provide additional clarity and

information regarding the standards that the County would apply to the use of carbon offsets in the event

of Project approval. As updated, mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8:

• Set forth standards for eligible carbon offset protocols and methodologies, and attach a compilation

of specific protocols and methodologies eligible for use that have been reviewed by the County and

found to establish and require carbon offset projects to comply with standards designed to achieve

additional, real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable reductions (see mitigation

measure M-GCC-7 Attachment “A”);

• Require that offsets meet rigorous standards of environmental integrity by explicitly incorporating

in the body of the mitigation measures the requirements that offsets be additional, real, permanent,

quantifiable, verifiable and enforceable, as well as the definitions of those terms;

• Identify objective locational performance standards, and require that compliance with such

standards be proven through the use of all available carbon offsets within a respective rung of the

geographic priority listing before utilization of offsets originating from the next priority location;

• Eliminate the use of international offsets; and

• Establish express reporting and enforcement standards to underscore that Project permitting shall

not proceed in the absence of objective and verifiable evidence that the Project Applicants have

retired a sufficient quantity of adequate carbon offsets to reduce emissions from construction and

operations associated with the corresponding grading and building permits. Safeguards also have

been added in the event that the County determines that a previously retired offset is not compliant

with the stringent standards set forth in the mitigation measures. A processing checklist and

flowchart have been added to detail the precise implementation and administration process (see

mitigation measure M-GCC-7 Attachment “B”).

Mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8, as updated, are presented in full in Subsection 2.10.5,

Mitigation, of EIR Section 2.10, Global Climate Change.




Project Mitigation Requires Rigorous Standards to Ensure the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Offsets

Overview of Carbon Offsets

Carbon offsets are instruments that can be bought, sold, and traded. Like a stock or equity that represents a

unit of ownership in a company, a carbon offset represents a unit of GHG emissions reductions. Each offset

is a certification that a certain quantity of GHG emissions has been or is forecasted to be avoided, prevented,

or sequestered. Examples of activities that generate offsets include reforestation to increase carbon

sequestration and the capture and destruction of methane emissions from livestock.

Carbon Offsets Must Meet Certain Standards

An activity can only generate registry-issued carbon offsets if the project developer demonstrates the

environmental integrity of the activity by meeting specific standards. Therefore, offset registries have

developed a broad consensus around the standards that are necessary to ensure that offsets are

environmentally sound, namely that offsets be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and

additional, defined as follows:

“Real”: offsets may only be issued for emissions reductions that are a result of complete emissions

accounting. This means that the GHG reduction underlying the carbon offset must result from a

demonstrable action or set of actions, and be quantified using appropriate, accurate, and

conservative methodologies that account for all GHG emissions sources and sinks within the

boundary of the applicable carbon offset project, uncertainty, and the potential for activity-shifting

leakage and market-shifting leakage.

“Permanent”: the emissions reductions must be permanent and not be reversed; or, when the

reduction may be reversible, a mechanism must be in place to replace any reversed emissions

reductions. For example, in the context of forestry, offset project developers must demonstrate that

the carbon sequestered in the trees of the forest will not be released to the atmosphere after the fact;

i.e., that the trees will not be cut down. Recognizing that unanticipated events are possible, and in

order to ensure permanency, registries maintain a number of un-retired carbon offsets in a separate

“buffer pool” that can be used in the event that a previously implemented reduction is reversed.

Continuing with the forestry example, offsets from a buffer pool could be used to replace reductions

lost due to fire. Attachment GR.R1.1 of these Responses to Comments contains additional

information regarding how each registry’s “buffer pool” ensures the permanency of the offsets it

issues.

“Quantifiable”: the emissions reductions from an activity must be rigorously quantified, and offsets

may only be issued in an amount that corresponds to emissions that have been quantified. Project

developers must ensure the accuracy of their emissions accounting by adhering to standardized

quantification methodologies called “protocols,” which are discussed further below.

“Verifiable”: to receive offset credits, emission reductions must be well documented and

transparent enough to be capable of objective review by a neutral, third party verifier that is

accredited through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The registries require that

the third-party verification include a review of all documentation, monitoring data, and procedures

used to estimate GHG reductions, and culminate in the verification body’s issuance of a report and

statement that identifies the quantity of carbon offsets that can be issued to the carbon offset project.

As part of the report and statement, the independent third-party verifies that the carbon offset

project has adhered to the pertinent protocol or methodology (see below for further discussion of

such protocols and methodologies) in order to confirm that the carbon offset project’s GHG




reductions are real, permanent, quantifiable, enforceable and additional. Attachment GR.R1.1 of

these Responses to Comments contains examples of the verification reports submitted to registries

and related documents.

“Enforceable”: in order to be eligible to generate offsets from reputable programs, the

implementation of the activity must represent the legally binding commitment of the offset project

developer. Once the developer undertakes the activity, the developer is under a legal obligation to

carry it out.

(Separate from the registries’ environmental integrity standards discussed herein, CEQA

Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(2) provides that “[m]itigation measures must be fully enforceable

through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments.” In the case of the

proposed Project, mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 would be made fully enforceable

through the County’s adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and

corresponding Conditions of Approval in the event that the County’s Board of Supervisors certifies

this EIR and approves the Project. Mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 provide the

County with sufficient enforcement avenues because the issuance of grading and building permits

is tied to and contingent upon the satisfactory retirement of carbon offsets compliant with the

articulated mitigation standards. If satisfactory carbon offsets are not retired, permits shall not issue

and no environmental impacts requiring mitigation shall occur. Further, should the County

determine that previously retired carbon offsets no longer meet the mitigation standards, the County

shall not resume Project permitting activities until the Project Applicants have demonstrated

compliance with those standards or undertaken and completed necessary corrective action.)

“Additional”: the GHG emissions reductions generated by an activity must be “additional,”

meaning that they are only eligible to generate offsets if they would not have occurred without the

offset activity. Project developers must ensure additionality by adhering to the applicable protocol,

as discussed further below.

In order to assess whether a carbon offset project results in “additional” reductions, the protocols

and methodologies adopted by the registries utilize legal requirement and performance standard

tests. A carbon offset project passes the legal requirement test when there are no laws, statutes,

regulations, court orders, environmental mitigation agreements, permitting conditions, or other

legally binding mandates requiring its implementation, or requiring the implementation of similar

measures that would achieve equivalent levels of GHG emission reductions. A carbon offset project

passes the performance standard test when – in the absence of a carbon offset market – the project

would have insufficient financial returns or would face other types of insurmountable economic,

social or technological implementation barriers. If the registry finds that the carbon offset project

does not pass either the legal requirement test or performance standard test, then the project is not

eligible for the issuance of carbon offsets. For example, a livestock project may not receive offset

credits for the operation of a biogas system at a farm if the farm had to operate a biogas control

system as a condition of a permit to operate issued by a local air district or other permitting

authority.




Different offset programs have adopted slightly different versions of these standards, but the differences

are non-substantive.1 Further, these environmental integrity criteria are broadly recognized as sufficient to

ensure the environmental benefit of activities that generate carbon offsets.2

Climate Registries Use Standardized Protocols and a Rigorous Review Process to Approve Offsets

Carbon offsets are issued by a climate registry that has undertaken the responsibility of certifying that the

action or activity that results in emissions reductions has occurred. Climate registries are focused on

achieving environmental integrity via the standards discussed in the prior subsection because – even in the

arena of “voluntary” offsets – principles of accountability and transparency drive the marketability of

offsets. To this end, the Climate Action Reserve began as the California Climate Action Registry, which

was created by the State of California in 2001 to address climate change through voluntary calculation and

public reporting of emissions. The Reserve establishes high quality standards for carbon offset projects,

oversees independent third-party verification bodies, issues carbon credits generated from such projects and

tracks the transaction of credits over time in a transparent, publicly accessible system. Verra and the

American Carbon Registry are similarly multi-dimensional – the registries develop and administer

programs for the creation, implementation and verification of offset projects.

In order to ensure that carbon offset projects, and their implementing protocols and methodologies, meet

the environmental integrity criteria targeted by the registries, each registry has issued a program manual

and other supporting guidance that address the procedural and substantive standards that must be adhered

to in order for a carbon offset project to culminate in the reduction and avoidance of GHG emissions. The

program manuals and supporting guidance also address the procedural and substantive standards for

issuance and retirement of carbon offsets. Copies of the registries’ program manuals, which are updated

from time to time, are included in mitigation measure M-GCC-7 Attachment “A” and include the American

Carbon Registry’s “The American Carbon Registry Standard” (July 2019); Climate Action Reserve’s

“Reserve Offset Program Manual” (November 2019) and “Climate Forward Program Manual” (March

2020); and Verra’s “VCS Standard,” “Program Guide” and “Methodology Requirements” (September

2019).

Developers of offsets can demonstrate the environmental integrity of an offset project by complying with

a climate registry’s standards-based “protocol” or “methodology” (hereafter generally referred to as

“protocol”). Each protocol contains standards specific to the carbon offset project type that is the subject of

the protocol and addresses items required by the program manuals, such as:

• Unique definitions and terms of art;

• Eligibility rules, including locational limits, project start dates and crediting periods, and criteria

for establishing additionality;

• Resilience measures for project design;

• Quantification rules and criteria, including as to the GHG assessment boundary and methods for

estimating baseline and project emissions;

1 See generally American Carbon Registry, “The American Carbon Registry Standard” (July 2019); Climate

Action Reserve, “Reserve Offset Program Manual” (November 2019) and “Climate Forward Program Manual”

(March 2020); Verra, “VCS Standard,” “Program Guide” and “Methodology Requirements” (September 2019).

Copies of these program manuals are included in mitigation measure M-GCC-7 Attachment “A.”

2 See, e.g., Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. CARB (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 870; Three-Regions Offsets

Working Group, “Ensuring Offset Quality: Design and Implementation Criteria for a High-Quality Offset Program”

(May 2010) at pp. 3-4.




• Monitoring requirements and reporting parameters; and,

• Verification and confirmation standards, including record retention.

Eligible protocols and methodologies are included in mitigation measure M-GCC-7 Attachment “A.” The

protocols and methodologies contained therein include, but are not limited to, the Climate Action Reserve’s

U.S. Landfill Protocol (which is associated with installing landfill gas collection and destruction systems) and

Dairy Digester Methodology (which is associated with the utilization of biogas control systems to capture and

destroy methane from anaerobic manure treatment and/or storage facilities at dairies); the American Carbon

Registry’s Improved Forest Management Methodology for Non-Federal U.S. Forestlands (which is associated

with enhanced sequestration activities relative to baseline forest management); and, Verra’s Soil Carbon

Quantification Methodology (which is associated with changes to agricultural practices, grassland and

rangeland restorations, soil carbon protection and accrual benefits from reductions in erosion, and grassland

protection projects).

The timeline for a registry’s scoping and development of new project concepts that culminate in the

adoption of protocols varies, depending on the project type and available information. Generally speaking,

registry staff begins by conducting internal research regarding the viability of a project concept, which

registry staff may identify on their own or which interested stakeholders may submit. The Climate Action

Reserve considers the following, non-exclusive list of criteria when assessing the viability of a project

concept for protocol development:3

• Whether the GHG reductions would occur outside of proposed or adopted caps on GHG emissions

(e.g., the Climate Action Reserve does not consider fossil fuel combustion reduction projects in

California for protocol development because the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program covers fuel

refineries);

• Whether the GHG reductions are direct or indirect;

• Whether the GHG reductions are likely to be additional;

• Whether there is significant potential for reducing GHG emissions in the United States;

• Whether well-developed quantification methodologies are available;

• Whether accurate and cost-effective measurement and monitoring techniques are available; and,

• Whether the projects would have positive or negative environmental and social co-effects.

If the concept shows promise and seems suitable for the development of a standardized protocol, the

Climate Action Reserve – for example – will host a formal public scoping meeting and a subsequent

protocol kickoff meeting. From that point forward, the Climate Action Reserve’s process generally takes 6

to 12 months, or more, to reach protocol adoption.4

Attachment GR.R1.1 of these Responses to Comments contains additional information regarding the

processes used by the registries to establish new and update existing protocols. As summarized therein,

each registry engages in public consultation and provides public review during the protocol development

phase, affording interested members of the public and experts in the field an opportunity to provide input

3 See the Climate Action Reserve’s “Criteria for Protocol Development” webpage available at

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/criteria/.

4 For more information on the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol development process, please see

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/.

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/criteria/

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/




on the protocol. Draft protocols also are routinely subject to peer review by independent experts in the field,

which often results in an iterative process that refines the standards contained in each draft protocol. Further,

each registry only approves a protocol if it determines that the protocol complies with its program manual

and will generate carbon offsets with sufficient environmental integrity. The referenced information located

in Attachment GR.R1.1 also includes a table illustrating the public consultation process, using concrete

examples of protocol development undertaken by the Climate Action Reserve, American Carbon Registry,

and Verra.

Carbon offset registries measure compliance with approved protocols using rigorous, standardized review

processes. As a general rule, when approving a GHG reduction project, the climate registry would require

that the offset project meet the following steps to receive offsets:

Listing or Registration: Apply to list or register the proposed GHG emission reduction project with

the climate registry. The climate registry will review the application and accept it only if it complies

with the applicable climate registry requirements.

Independent, Qualified Third-Party Confirmation of Reduction or Sequestration: Once a GHG

emission reduction project has begun, the climate registry will require the offset project developer

to retain an independent, qualified, third-party to verify the reduction or sequestration achieved by

the project. Each climate registry has adopted stringent requirements applicable to the accreditation

of third parties and only such third parties are qualified to verify and audit the activities under the

applicable registry rules. The verification and audit process typically takes place on an annual basis.

Activities undertaken in a given 12-month period are typically verified during the following 6-12

months. Most climate registry rules and protocols require “boots on the ground” audits by

accredited third parties, although in certain instances desktop reviews by the third-party verifier

may be sufficient.

Registry Approval and Issuance: The final step under most climate registry rules and protocols

involves the issuance of the offsets. Registry rules and protocols require the project developer to

apply for issuance and to provide the verification report prepared by the independent, qualified

third-party. The registry will typically review a verification report and, to the extent that the registry

finds that the report complies with the applicable registry requirements, the registry will issue the

offsets to the account of the project developer.

Carbon Offset Retirement: Each registry has adopted rules and procedures governing the retirement

or cancellation of offsets. Typically, these rules or procedures involve the transfer of the offset

serial numbers from a registry account and ensure that once a carbon offset credit has been retired,

the retirement is permanent and the carbon offset cannot be further used in any manner.

These protocols and processes ensure that offsets issued by offset registries satisfy the environmental

integrity criteria described above, as multiple agencies and jurisdictions implementing such programs have

recognized. Indeed, during rulemaking for the Cap-and-Trade Program, CARB stated:

“Beginning in 2005, the Climate Action Reserve … began adopting voluntary GHG

accounting protocols to encourage early action to reduce GHG emissions. [C]ARB

recognizes the rigor of the voluntary accounting procedures CAR adopted to establish that




GHG emissions are real, additional, and permanent.”5,6

Indeed, the carbon offset standards and criteria set forth in mitigation measures M-GCC-7- and M-GCC-8

are similar to those contained in the “Newhall Ranch Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan,” which is a State-

approved plan for the use of carbon offsets. (See Appendix C-27 of the EIR for a copy of the referenced

plan.) The County notes, however, that the Project’s carbon offset mitigation measures are not and do not

need to be identical to that plan because the development of mitigation is not uniform or one-size-fits-all,

but rather reflects project-specific application. CEQA affords each lead agency with the ability to exercise

its discretion, provided that substantial evidence supports the approach taken.

Additional background materials regarding carbon offsets included in Attachment GR.R1.1 of these

Responses to Comments show the environmental integrity of the offsets issued by the registries above and

broad recognition of that integrity. Those materials include pertinent excerpts from the Cap-and-Trade

Program and Senate Bill (SB) 97 rulemaking proceedings; information regarding the Climate Action

Reserve, Verra and American Carbon Registry; letters from the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

regarding the Newhall Ranch Project’s mitigation framework, which includes offsets; information

regarding the Climate Action Reserve’s Climate Forward Program7; and, information regarding forest offset

protocols.

5 CARB, “Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program, Part I, Volume I: Initial

Statement of Reasons” (October 28, 2010) at II-48.

6 There is a broad consensus on the accounting principles necessary to ensure environmentally sound offsets.

The standards include International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14064 and 14065, and the World

Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) Greenhouse Gas Protocol

for Project Accounting. The ISO is an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership

of 162 countries, including the United States. The ISO publishes standards for a wide variety of industrial activities,

such as food safety management, medical device management, and anti-bribery management. (See ISO, “Standards”

available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm.) The ISO is an independent, neutral developer of standards,

including GHG emission reduction accounting standards. The WRI is a global research organization focused on

addressing the nexus of environment, economic opportunity and human well-being, and the WBCSD is a global, CEO-

led organization working to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world. As described in Section IX.A.1 of

Appendix C-27, the accounting standards consider transparency and monitoring; relevance; completeness;

consistency; accuracy; and conservativeness. 7 The Climate Action Reserve recently launched the “Climate Forward” program, under which it approves

“standardized and conservative quantification methodologies for assessing the forecasted (ex-ante) emission

reductions of GHG reduction projects and issue[] credits for the mitigation measures. These forward-looking credits

can then be used to mitigate the GHG emissions impact of future projects that a company or organization might

undertake.” For more information on Climate Forward, please see http://www.climateactionreserve.org/climate-

forward/ and http://www.climateactionreserve.org/climate-forward/fmus/.

As provided in the “Climate Forward Program Manual,” the program “recognize[s] investments now that

will reduce [GHG] emissions in order to mitigate emissions that will occur in the future from new types of economic

activity (e.g., …housing development …).” While Forecasted Mitigation Units (FMUs) issued under the program

reflect mitigation actions that will produce a future stream of emission reductions, the FMUs only can be issued after

an accredited confirmation body determines that the emissions-reducing project “has been implemented as described

in the forecast methodology, and that the estimated emission reductions have been calculated accurately.” It also is

noted that the Reserve deploys multiple strategies to minimize potential underperformance in the program, such as

“avoiding project types with unacceptably high risk, requiring implementation of ‘resilience measures’ to mitigate

risks of project failure or under-performance, conservative GHG accounting approaches, and the use of a risk pool.”

FMUs have been retired for CEQA mitigation purposes in other jurisdictions, as disclosed on the Reserve’s Retired

Mitigation Units report available at https://climateforward.apx.com/.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/climate-forward/

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/climate-forward/

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/climate-forward/fmus/

https://climateforward.apx.com/




Relationship of Project Mitigation to CARB’s Compliance Offsets under the Cap-and-Trade Program

The Quantitative Limits on Offsets Established for Cap-and-Trade Program

Covered Entities Do Not and Should Not Apply to This Land Use Development Project

Several comments have referred to the Cap-and-Trade Program’s quantitative limits on the use of a Cap-

and-Trade Program regulated entity’s carbon offsets, opining that the proposed Project is allowed to

mitigate too large of a percentage of its emissions inventory through off-site carbon offsets. Such limits do

not apply and should not be applied to this land use development project.

As background, regulated entities subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program may use compliance offsets to

meet up to 8 percent of their compliance obligation for emissions through 2020; 4 percent of their

compliance obligation for emissions from 2021-2025; and 6 percent for emissions from 2026-2030. Starting

with 2021 emissions, no more than one half of the quantitative usage limit may be sourced from carbon

offset projects that do not provide direct environmental benefits in California.

The County notes first that such limits do not apply to this land use development project. As discussed

above, under CEQA, the County has the discretion to identify and implement appropriate mitigation for

identified significant environmental impacts of a project. It is notable that both on-site and off-site GHG

reduction activities have been identified here to reduce the proposed Project’s GHG emissions.

Second, such limits should not apply to this Project as the operation of a land use development project is

distinct and disparate from the operation of entities regulated under the Cap-and-Trade Program. The Cap-

and-Trade Program’s typical “covered entities” include electric power plants, large industrial plants, and

fuel distributors that are responsible for about 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. Entities regulated

by the Cap-and-Trade Program, therefore, generally have direct operational control of the long-term GHG

emissions from the source profile. On the other hand, land use developers do not have continuing control

and authority over most, if not all, of the sources of GHG emissions. For example, homeowners decide

when to turn appliances on and off; business owners decide their hours of operation; drivers select the type

of vehicle they will operate; etc. Practically speaking, this limits the suite of on-site reduction strategies that

a land use developer can use to reduce GHG emissions, unlike those covered entities under the Cap-and-

Trade Program.

Third, the County notes that covered entities (e.g., fuel refineries) regulated by the Cap-and-Trade Program

are not presently required by the Program to achieve a level of “net zero” GHG emissions. Rather, such

entities are subject to a declining GHG emissions cap that gradually and incrementally reduces emissions

from the regulated emissions-generating activities.8 For example, between 2015 and 2020, the Cap-and-

Trade Program’s emissions cap declined about three percent each year; between 2021 and 2030, the

emissions cap is designed to decrease an additional five percent.9 As such, covered entities are permitted to

emit a certain, positive quantity of GHG emissions. By contrast, the Project is proposing to achieve net zero

GHG emissions in order to avoid a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. These

important distinctions between the Cap-and-Trade Program’s covered entities and the proposed Project are

important distinguishing factors that the County has considered when designing the proposed Project EIR’s

framework for the reduction of GHG emissions.

8 CARB, “Overview of ARB Emissions Trading Program” (February 2015), available at

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf.

9 See Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “California Cap and Trade” webpage, available at

https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/.

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf

https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/




Offsets Used by Land Use Development Projects Are Not Issued by CARB

or Issued Pursuant to “CARB-Approved” Protocols

It has been suggested that the Project should be limited to use of “compliance offsets” issued by CARB

under the Cap-and-Trade Program, or offsets issued under “CARB-approved” protocols. Such limitations

would be infeasible and inconsistent with CARB’s own approach relative to land use development projects.

First, the Project is not a regulated entity covered by and subject to CARB’s Cap-and-Trade Program. As a

land use development project, the Project does not participate in the Cap-and-Trade Program. The carbon

offsets purchased by the proposed Project must be from the voluntary marketplace, and are not Cap-and-

Trade compliance offsets administered and issued by CARB.

Second, the Project also cannot be restricted to use of only “CARB-approved protocols” because CARB

does not review or approve protocols for the voluntary marketplace. Specifically, CARB does not adopt or

approve protocols developed by the Climate Action Reserve, American Carbon Registry or Verra for

voluntary carbon offsets. Rather, CARB only adopts and approves regulatory protocols that it administers

for compliance offset credits under the Cap-and-Trade Program. CARB does periodically review, however,

voluntary offset protocols developed by the Climate Action Reserve, American Carbon Registry and Verra

to determine whether they identify reduction pathways that should be made available via compliance offset

protocols; this approach affirms that CARB recognizes the integrity of these registries, as well as the offsets

programs they administer. The fact that a voluntary offset protocol has not been developed by CARB into

a compliance offset protocol does not suggest the voluntary protocol lacks sufficient environmental

integrity or effectiveness. As explained by CARB, numerous factors influence its selection and

development of compliance offset protocols; for example, it only develops compliance protocols for sources

outside of the industrial, energy and transportation sectors that are otherwise regulated and capped by the

Cap-and-Trade Program. Further, CARB only needs to develop compliance offset protocols sufficient to

meet the demand for offsets generated by the Cap-and-Trade Program’s covered entities. Importantly,

CARB has expressly stated that its decision not to develop a compliance offset protocol does not preclude

the development of voluntary offsets.10

Third, the Project’s utilization of carbon offsets from the voluntary marketplace for purposes of CEQA

mitigation is consistent with the approach taken by CARB when issuing its “net zero” determinations under

AB 900. As discussed further below, CARB has regularly approved the use of voluntary offsets for AB

900-compliant land use projects, recognizing the integrity of offsets sold in the voluntary marketplace. All

three of these registries are considered “accredited” by CARB in the CEQA mitigation context under AB

900, as further discussed below.

CARB’s Certification of AB 900 Projects Establishes Precedent for Use of

Voluntary Carbon Offsets by Land Use Development Projects to Achieve Net Zero Emissions

The certification of projects under AB 900, the Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental

Leadership Act, also supports the use of offsets. Under that statute, certain CEQA streamlining benefits are

provided to “environmental leadership” projects. One of the key conditions for streamlining eligibility

under AB 900 is that such projects must offset all emissions to be “GHG neutral.” (Pub. Resources Code

Section 21183(c).)

10 CARB, “California Air Resources Board’s Process for the Review and Approval of Compliance Offset

Protocols in Support of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation” (May 2013), available at

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/compliance-offset-protocol-process.pdf.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/compliance-offset-protocol-process.pdf




In issuing its GHG neutral determination for AB 900-compliant land use projects, CARB makes a

determination that the applicant has committed to reduce emissions to net zero. AB 900 projects routinely

use a combination of on-site GHG-reducing strategies and the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets from

accredited registries to achieve the net zero standard. Several points of this determination are notable.

First, as part of the application process, AB 900 projects are not required to provide documentation of the

specific types of offset projects or protocols/methodologies underlying the voluntary offsets that would be

retired to achieve net zero reductions. Stated differently, CARB does not review or approve of the use of

certain protocols/methodologies or carbon offset project types. Instead, CARB simply requires voluntary

offsets be issued by an “accredited carbon registry” in a sufficient amount.11 (As described in one of

CARB’s AB 900 project staff evaluations, an “accredited carbon registry” is a registry “such as the

American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra.”)12

Second, CARB does not implement quantitative limits on the use of voluntary offsets for AB 900 projects.

For example, CARB recently made a net zero determination for the Balboa Reservoir Mixed-Use project

on December 19, 2019.13 That project would emit a total 90,993 MT CO2e, or 111,650 MT CO2e for the

project variant. The project committed to securing 77,320 MT CO2e in offsets for the project, or 94,076

MT CO2e for the project variant. In other words, offsets would be used to mitigate for approximately 85

percent of project emissions, regardless of any design features ultimately implemented as part of the project.

Similarly, in a December 17, 2019 determination for the California Northstate University Medical Center

Project, CARB authorized the purchase of 775,622 MT CO2e in offsets from accredited carbon registries

to reduce project emissions to net zero for a 30-year period, in combination with the project’s commitments

to install solar photovoltaic panels, utilize a renewable energy program, install electric vehicle charging

stations, administer a transportation demand management program and implement a vegetation plan to

preserve existing and plant additional trees.14 As a point of comparison, that project’s on-site strategies

were estimated to annually reduce emissions by approximately 12,815 MT CO2e at build out.

Third, CARB does not review nor approve the offsets ultimately purchased for retirement by AB 900

projects. Rather, AB 900 projects must generally commit to executing contracts for the purchase of offsets

from an accredited registry, which requirement is enforceable by the lead agency through incorporation in

a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, development agreement, and/or project conditions of

approval. Whether an applicant has purchased an adequate number of offsets from an accredited registry is

a determination made by the lead agency for the project, not CARB.

Fourth, CARB has not mandated that AB 900 projects commit to offsets of local origin. And, CARB has

determined that AB 900 projects can achieve the necessary GHG emissions reductions without imposing

rigid, quantitative limits on the locational attributes of carbon offset credits. (See Appendix C-26 of the

EIR for additional details on CARB’s review of AB 900 projects relative to locational attributes.)

11 California Jobs (AB 900) Submitted Applications, available at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html.

12 See page 15 of CARB’s Staff Evaluation for the Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project

(November 27, 2019), available at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191202-

AB987_IBEC_Carb_Determination_Letter.pdf.

13 CARB, AB 900 Determination of No Net Additional Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Balboa Reservoir

Mixed-Use Project (December 19, 2019), available at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-

AB900_Balboa_Reservoir_Mixed-Use_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf. 14 CARB, AB 900 Determination of No Net Additional Greenhouse Gas Emissions for California Northstate

University Medical Center Project (December 17, 2019), available at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-

AB900_California_Northstate_University_Medical_Center_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf.

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191202-AB987_IBEC_Carb_Determination_Letter.pdf

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191202-AB987_IBEC_Carb_Determination_Letter.pdf

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-AB900_Balboa_Reservoir_Mixed-Use_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-AB900_Balboa_Reservoir_Mixed-Use_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-AB900_California_Northstate_University_Medical_Center_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/ab900/20191220-AB900_California_Northstate_University_Medical_Center_Project_CARB_Determination.pdf




To date, multiple projects have been designated as AB 900 leadership projects by CARB and the Governor,

which projects have made a commitment to purchase GHG offset credits from the voluntary carbon

marketplace to ensure carbon neutrality. A local example includes the Soitec Solar Energy Project,

approved by the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors in 2015.15 The Board of Supervisors approved

this project with conditions of approval to purchase and retire carbon offsets. CARB’s example in

designating AB 900 projects shows how offsets may be appropriately used to reduce the GHG emissions

of this land use development Project to net zero.

Carbon Offset Protocols Have Been Upheld By Courts

In Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. CARB (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 870, 880, the First Appellate District

recognized the validity of carbon offsets:

“[P]rotocols developed by the Climate Action Reserve (Reserve) employ a standards-based

approach for ensuring additionality. The Reserve is a national nonprofit organization that

(1) develops standards for evaluating, verifying and monitoring GHG emission inventories

and reduction projects in North America; (2) issues offset credits for those projects; and

(3) tracks offset credits over time ‘in a transparent, publicly-accessible system.’ A primary

goal of the Reserve is to establish conservative GHG accounting which will ensure that

GHG emission reductions are ‘real, permanent, additional, verifiable, and enforceable by

contract.’ In formulating its standards-based protocols, the Reserve identifies types of

emission reduction projects that are both subject to quantification and appropriate for

assessment pursuant to performance-based additionality tests.”

In 2011, CARB formally adopted its own protocols, which it took almost verbatim from Climate Action

Reserve’s protocols.16 CARB’s protocols were challenged as violating Assembly Bill (AB) 32 because they

purportedly failed to accurately ensure additionality as required by the act, but the court sided with CARB,

finding that CARB’s protocols based on Climate Action Reserve’s protocols are a “workable method of

ensuring additionality with respect to offset credits.” (Our Children’s Earth Foundation at p. 889.) CARB

has since expanded its program to accept carbon offsets issued under American Carbon Registry and

Verified Carbon Standard methodologies, in addition to those from the Climate Action Reserve.17

Carbon Offsets Are Recognized as Appropriate and Legitimate CEQA Mitigation

The appropriateness of using offsets as CEQA mitigation for GHG emissions is well established.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3) provides that “[o]ff-site measures, including offsets

that are not otherwise required,” can be used to mitigate a project’s GHG emissions.18

15 Information on AB 900 leadership projects is found at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html.

16 See, e.g., CARB, “Compliance Offset Protocol Livestock Projects: Capturing and Destroying Methane from

Manure Management Systems” (October 20, 2011).

17 See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 17, Section 95990(c)(5).

It is noted that, under mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8, the Project shall neither purchase offsets

from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) registry nor purchase offsets generated under CDM protocols. The

Project also will not retire carbon offsets from international projects.

18 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) states: “If a mitigation measure would cause one or more

significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation

measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” In this instance,

and based on the type of information reasonably available at this time, the proposed Project’s utilization of carbon

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html




In promulgating the CEQA Guidelines for GHG mitigation, the California Natural Resources Agency

(CNRA) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) addressed the legitimacy of offsets as

follows:19

“The Initial Statement of Reasons ... cites several sources discussing examples of offsets

being used in a CEQA context. Further, the CARB Scoping Plan describes offsets as a way

to provide regulated entities a source of low-cost emission reductions, and … encourage

the spread of clean, efficient technology within and outside California. The Natural

Resources Agency finds that the offset concept is consistent with the existing CEQA

Guidelines’ definition of ‘mitigation,’ which includes ‘[r]ectifying the impact by repairing,

rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment’ and ‘[c]ompensating for the impact

by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.’”

Similarly, when discussing “Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Actions and Thresholds”

in California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017), CARB stated that, “Where further

project design or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective, it may be appropriate

and feasible to mitigate project emissions through purchasing and retiring carbon credits.”20

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. D075478)

does not invalidate the use of offsets as CEQA mitigation. To the contrary, the Fourth District was clear

that “[o]ur decision is not intended to be, and should not be construed as [a] blanket prohibition on using

carbon offsets—even those originating outside of California—to mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA.”

The Fourth District relatedly acknowledged that “CEQA permits mitigation measures for GHG emissions

to include offsite measures, including purchasing offsets.” However, specific to the offset mitigation

measure included in the County’s Supplemental EIR for its Climate Action Plan, the Fourth District found

mitigation was improperly deferred for failing to set forth sufficient performance standards and for

delegating authority to a County official without objective criteria for implementation. (For additional

information regarding the County’s Climate Action Plan litigation and its relevance to the proposed

Project’s EIR, please see Global Response R2: County of San Diego Climate Action Plan.) As explained

in the introductory portion of this Global Response, mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 have

offsets – via implementation of M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 – is not expected to result in one or more significant effects

because carbon registries prioritize protocols for offset project types that can create significant co-benefits and avoid

those with significant negative social and environmental impacts.

In support of this determination, please see Climate Action Reserve’s webpage regarding “Criteria for

Protocol Development,” available at http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/criteria/.

See also Climate Action Reserve’s Program Manual (November 2019), available at

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/program/program-manual/. As provided in Section 2.4.6 of the Program

Manual, the Climate Action Reserve “requires project developers to demonstrate that their GHG projects will not

undermine progress on other environmental issues such as air and water quality, endangered species and natural

resource protection, and environmental justice.” In order to ensure that such adverse effects are avoided, the Climate

Action Reserve coordinates with government agencies and environmental representatives, requires project developers

to demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws (including environmental regulations), and may include – within

individual offset protocols – requirements specifically designed to serve as environmental and social safeguards.

19 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the

State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97

(December 2009).

20 Appendix B of California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan provides that CEQA lead agencies should

consider: (1) requiring projects to purchase carbon credits from credible offset registries, and (2) encouraging projects

to select local and California-only carbon credits, where available.

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocol-development/criteria/

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/program/program-manual/




been updated and augmented in response to the decision to incorporate additional performance standards

and objective criteria. However, the overall purpose of the mitigation measures remains unchanged: to

incorporate certain and enforceable mitigation, consistent with CEQA’s requirements, to reduce the

Project’s GHG emissions to net zero through the retirement of carbon offsets.

CEQA Requirement of Additionality of Carbon Offsets

Besides the additionality standard for offsets required by the registries, the requirement for additionality is

incorporated into the CEQA Guidelines. CNRA and OPR squarely addressed the issue of additionality

when revising the CEQA Guidelines in response to the passage of SB 97 as follows:

“[E]mission reductions that occur without a project would not normally qualify as

mitigation … [T]his interpretation of the CEQA statute and case law is consistent with the

Legislature’s directive in AB 32 that reductions relied on as part of a market-based

compliance mechanism must be ‘in addition to any [GHG] emission reduction otherwise

required by law or regulation, and any other [GHG] emission reduction that otherwise

would occur.’ [citation omitted] While AB 32 and CEQA are separate statutes, the

additionality concept may be applied analytically in the latter as follows: [GHG] emission

reductions that are otherwise required by law or regulation would be appropriately

considered part of the existing baseline … Thus, … the Natural Resources Agency has

revised section 15126.4(c)(3) to state that mitigation includes: ‘Off-site measures,

including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions.’”

(CNRA, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines

Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97 (December 2009),

pp. 88-89.)

Mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 explicitly require all carbon offsets to satisfy additionality

requirements consistent with CEQA. Specifically, both measures require carbon offsets to represent the

“…reduction or sequestration of one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent that is ‘not otherwise required’

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3)).” Further, the measures define “additional” as that term is used

by the Climate Action Reserve, American Carbon Registry and Verra to ensure the integrity of carbon

offsets from projects that each registry administers. As such, carbon offsets purchased for the Project would

be additional.

Availability of Carbon Offsets

Based on the County’s research, it believes that sufficient carbon offsets are available for use within the

CEQA context.21 By way of example, the Climate Action Reserve has registered more than 140 million

metric tons of GHG reductions and retired more than 40 million carbon offsets.22 The Climate Action

Reserve found that Ohio (77 projects) and California (69 projects) lead the nation in the number of offset

projects registered.23 The American Climate Registry announced its issuance of more than 100 million

21 See, e.g., Unlocking Potential: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017, Ecosystem Marketplace,

available at https://www.cbd.int/financial/2017docs/carbonmarket2017.pdf.

22 See Climate Action Reserve, “2019 Annual Report,” available at

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/about-us/#annualreports.

23 See Climate Action Reserve, “2019 Annual Report,” available at

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/about-us/#annualreports.

https://www.cbd.int/financial/2017docs/carbonmarket2017.pdf

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/about-us/#annualreports

https://www.climateactionreserve.org/about-us/#annualreports




carbon offsets in August 2017,24 and the Verified Carbon Standard (now referred to as Verra) has certified

more than 1,600 projects that have removed or reduced more than 450 million metric tons of GHGs.25

Further, the development of offset projects is driven by market demand, which – at least in part – is

influenced by California’s strong environmental protection policies. As such, offset project developers are

expected to continue to pursue carbon reduction opportunities and technologies to meet demand.

As to speculative concerns regarding the future unavailability of carbon offsets, the Project’s mitigation

triggers require that proof of a sufficient offset quantity be provided before issuance of grading and building

permits. More specifically, the mitigation measures require carbon offsets to be secured by the Project in

advance of when the projected emissions will be generated by the Project. Specifically, M-GCC-7 requires

all of the construction and vegetation removal emissions associated with the Project to be offset “prior to

the County’s issuance of the Project’s first grading permit.” (2019 Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR,

p. 2.10-31; italics added.) M-GCC-8 similarly requires the operational emissions associated with Project to

be offset via one of the two options: (i) prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the Project shall

offset the total operational emissions inventory, as multiplied by 30 years; or (ii) prior to the issuance of

each increment of building permits for the phased development of the Project, the Project shall offset that

increment of the operational emissions inventory, as multiplied by 30 years. (2019 Recirculated Portions

of the Draft EIR, p. 2.10-33.) In other words, each permitted activity that occurs within the Project Site

would be required to reduce or sequester 30 years of projected operational emissions in advance of the

emissions being generated. Therefore, if offsets are not available, permits will not be issued and Project-

related emissions will not occur.

Duration of Mitigation Obligation

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) requires a lead agency to make a “good-faith effort, based to the

extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse

gas [GHG] emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4(a)(1) further provides that a lead agency,

when deciding whether to assess the significance of the project’s emissions using a quantitative or

qualitative approach, has the “discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate

provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence.”

Here, mitigation measure M-GCC-8 requires the Project to purchase and retire carbon offsets in a quantity

that is sufficient to reduce the Project’s operational GHG emissions to net zero for a 30-year period. The

County, as lead agency, has determined that a 30-year project life is the appropriate methodology for

delineating the extent of the Project’s GHG emissions inventory for purposes of mitigation measure M-

GCC-8’s applicable mitigation period. And, this discussion demonstrates that the use of 30-year project life

is a methodological determination that is strongly supported on at least five grounds, each of which provides

an independent basis for utilizing the subject analytic framework:

1. CARB, the state agency charged with the responsibility for and expertise to administer the State’s

GHG emissions policies (Health & Saf. Code Section 38510), has approved the use of a 30-year

project life when mitigating operational GHG emissions associated with land use development

projects in furtherance of achieving a no net increase in GHG emissions levels. Specifically, when

working with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to evaluate the

environmental impacts of the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan and

24 See https://americancarbonregistry.org/news-events/program-announcements/acr-reaches-milestone-

issuanceof-100-million-tonnes-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reductions.

25 See http://verra.org/project/vcs-program/.

https://americancarbonregistry.org/news-events/program-announcements/acr-reaches-milestone-issuanceof-100-million-tonnes-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reductions

https://americancarbonregistry.org/news-events/program-announcements/acr-reaches-milestone-issuanceof-100-million-tonnes-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reductions

http://verra.org/project/vcs-program/




Spineflower Conservation Plan (RMDP/SCP), which would facilitate the development of a large-

scale, master-planned community in Los Angeles County, CARB determined that utilization of a

30-year mitigation period would enable the RMDP/SCP project to achieve net zero GHG

emissions.26

A 30-year project life also has been used and approved by CARB to calculate offset requirements

for qualified “leadership projects” under AB 900 (Pub. Resources Code Sections 21178 through

21189.3). To obtain certification as a “leadership project,” a project must, among other

requirements, “not result in any net additional emission of [GHGs], including [GHG] emissions

from employee transportation, as determined by CARB pursuant to Division 25.5 (commencing

with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code.” (Pub. Resources Code Section 21183(c).) As

of this writing, all AB 900 projects submitted to CARB and the Governor for certification use a

project life of 30 or fewer years when calculating GHG emissions reductions.27

2. The Project Site is located in the San Diego Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego

Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). However, the SDAPCD does not provide guidance on

the subject of mitigation periods for GHG emissions. Therefore, reference was made to the

guidance of the neighboring air district, the South Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD), which supports using a 30-year project life to analyze a project’s GHG emissions

under CEQA, as more fully explained below.28

SCAQMD generally authorizes the use of a 30-year project life to calculate GHG emission offsets

in the CEQA mitigation context for land use development. More specifically, in conjunction with

its development of GHG emissions significance thresholds for application in the CEQA context,

SCAQMD identified a 30-year project life offset criterion after multiple stakeholder working group

meetings. SCAQMD recommended this specific project life because: “… the 30-year life of credits

is based on a standard 30-year economic life of a project (equipment, etc.) and the SCAQMD is

looking at that time period as a default time period. Other shorter options, such as equipment

permitted for a shorter time period, would be considered and evaluated on a project-by-project

basis.”29

SCAQMD folded this 30-year project life into its recommendation for arriving at GHG emissions

reduction measures, stating: “… the lead agency would quantify GHG emissions from the project

and the project proponent would implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or

purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. In

addition, the project proponent would be required to provide offsets for the life of the project, which

is defined as 30 years.”30

26 See CDFW, Final Additional Environmental Analysis for the Newhall Ranch Resource Management and

Development Plan and Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCH No. 2000011025) (June 2017). 27 The cited documentation for the referenced AB 900 projects is located at

http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/california-jobs.html.

28 SCAQMD is principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin,

which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange County.

29 SCAQMD, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #6

(October 22, 2008), p. 4; see also ICF International Technical Memorandum, Appendix B, Summaries of Working

Group Meetings, Figure B-3, Proposed Tiered Decision Tree Approach, at p. B-10 (Jul. 30, 2008) [“Offsets provided

for 30-year project life, unless project life limited by permit, lease, or other legally binding conditions.”]. 30 SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold, Attachment E, pp. 3-

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_californiajobs.php




In December 2008, SCAQMD’s Board adopted the staff-recommended interim GHG significance

threshold for stationary source/industrial projects where the air district is the CEQA lead agency;

that threshold uses a 30-year project life for modeling purposes and for determining required

mitigation. SCAQMD’s Board was not asked to take final action on the significance evaluation

framework developed by staff for residential and commercial projects, due to the need for further

work efforts related to CARB’s then-pending interim GHG proposal. However, SCAQMD’s

documentation does not discriminate between project type (industrial vs. residential/commercial)

for purposes of delineating the project life criterion. Instead, like in the industrial/stationary source

context, the mitigation offsets criterion for residential/commercial projects also applies to a 30-year

project life.

3. A 30-year project life is widely used in CEQA documents by expert consultants and lead

agencies—including San Diego County, the local land use agency with jurisdiction over the Project

site—for analyzing a project’s GHG emissions under CEQA. It is industry practice to amortize

construction emissions for residential and commercial projects over a 30-year period, which

corresponds to the assumed operational life of such projects. This standard practice is not limited

to the County of San Diego, but rather is used by lead agencies and expert consultants across

California. Examples include:

• Certified Final EIR for the Otay Ranch University Villages Project (SCH No. 2013071077;

November 2014), Lead Agency: City of Chula Vista, GHG Consultant: Dudek, Global

Climate Change Section at pages 5.14-21 and 5.14-24 (available at:

http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=8453);

• Draft EIR for the Qualcomm Stadium Reconstruction Project (SCH No. 2015061061;

August 2015), Lead Agency: City of San Diego, GHG Consultant: AECOM, Greenhouse

Gas Emissions Section at pages 4.5-14, 4.5-16 and 4.5-19 (available at:

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/cip/pdf/stadiumeir/chap4.pdf);

• Certified Final EIR for the 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project (SCH No. 2016011061;

September 2016), Lead Agency: City of Los Angeles, GHG Consultant: ESA, Initial Study

at pages B-42 to B-43 (available

at:http://planning.lacity.org/eir/333LaCienaga/files/Appendix%20A-1%20-

%20Part%201%20Initial%20Study.pdf);

• Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oakland Airport Perimeter Dike

FEMA and Seismic Improvements Project (SCH No. 2015092045; September 2015), Lead

Agency: Port of Oakland, GHG Consultant: URS, page 3-40 (available

at:http://www.portofoakland.com/files/PDF/environment/Airport_Public_Draft_IS_MND

.pdf);

• Certified Final EIR for The Landing at Walnut Creek Apartments Project (SCH No.

2013092048; May 2014), Lead Agency: City of Walnut Creek, GHG Consultant: The

Planning Center l DC&E (PlaceWorks), Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section at pages 4.7-

14 and 4.7-15 (available at: http://www.walnut-creek.org/home/showdocument?id=3000);

and,

16 (Oct. 2008); see also id., Figure 3-1, p. 3-11 and Table 3-4, pp. 3-18. Also of note, SCAQMD recognized that a

shorter project life (i.e., less than 30 years) can be appropriate for use in modeling under certain circumstances. (See

id., Figure B-3, pp. B-10.)

http://planning.lacity.org/eir/333LaCienaga/files/Appendix%20A-1%20-%20Part%201%20Initial%20Study.pdf

http://planning.lacity.org/eir/333LaCienaga/files/Appendix%20A-1%20-%20Part%201%20Initial%20Study.pdf

http://www.portofoakland.com/files/PDF/environment/Airport_Public_Draft_IS_MND.pdf);

http://www.portofoakland.com/files/PDF/environment/Airport_Public_Draft_IS_MND.pdf);

http://www.walnut-creek.org/home/showdocument?id=3000




• Certified Final Additional Environmental Analysis for the Newhall Ranch RMDP/SCP

Project (SCH No. 2000011025, June 2017), Lead Agency: CDFW, GHG Consultants:

Ascent Environmental, Inc. and Ramboll Environ, Global Climate Change/Greenhouse

Gas Emissions Section at pages 2.1-20 through 2.1-22 (available at:

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/regions/5/newhall).

4. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 established 2050 as the target year for an 80 percent reduction in

statewide GHG emissions below 1990 levels. The regulatory framework needed to achieve this

target requires transforming the State’s transportation, energy, and industrial sectors. As such, the

future GHG emission profiles for these sectors are not generally known. And, modeling emissions

significantly beyond 2050 requires speculation about GHG emissions that are not knowable or

known.

Here, the Project’s mitigation period under mitigation measure M-GCC-8 is 30 years. Because the

mitigation obligation is subject to phased implementation, based on the incremental portion of

development associated with each Site Plan and its corresponding building permits, the mitigation

period extends beyond 2050 for Site Plans with corresponding building permits that are issued later

in the Project’s construction schedule. For example, the anticipated build-out year of the project is

2030. If any building permits for implementing Site Plans are issued in 2030, the mitigation period

for the associated buildings would extend to 2059.

Based on information provided above regarding regulatory input and modeling parameter

limitations for post-2050 emissions estimates, a 30-year project life (that extends beyond the target

year established by the referenced EO) has been established as the period of time for which GHG

emissions can be reasonably estimated without undue speculation.

5. The modeling analysis likely overestimates the Project’s GHG emissions because the modeling

does not take into account reasonably foreseeable regulatory programs and other governmental

strategies and technological factors that likely would result in further reductions in GHG emissions

levels throughout California that are needed to achieve the State’s 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction

targets. Those future policies, regulations and programs are not yet adopted and their precise

parameters are unknown at this time.31

Because of these uncertainties, predicting, with quantified

precision, key variables and inputs affecting long-range GHG emissions forecasts beyond the 30-

year period requires speculation, contrary to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145. The inherent

uncertainties are reflected in available GHG emissions modeling tools, which are limited to the

integration of existing regulatory and technological standards.

31 CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan incorporates the “Cleaner Technology and Fuels Scenario” of

CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy (May 2016), which is based on the assumption that the combined car and light trucks

sales of zero emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will reach 100 percent by 2050. (Mobile Source

Strategy, p. 36.) On page 65 of the Mobile Source Strategy, CARB similarly observes that: “The updated Vision

analysis shows the vast majority of the on-road fleet must be ZEVs and PHEVs by 2050 in order to meet GHG targets,

requiring sales to achieve nearly 100 percent ZEVs (BEVs, FVCs, and PHEVs combined) by that point.” Therefore,

CARB, with the contemplated amendment of its Advanced Clean Cars regulation described in the Mobile Source

Strategy, is striving to ensure that 5.3 million combined ZEVs and PHEVs statewide are on California’s roadways in

2050. (Mobile Source Strategy, p. 65.)

The referenced “Vision analysis” is based on a multi-pollutant scenario planning tool that quantifies changes

in criteria air pollutants (and their pre- cursors), GHG emissions, toxic air contaminants and petroleum usage as various

technologies become widespread in vehicle and equipment fleets. (Mobile Source Strategy, p. 6.)

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/regions/5/newhall




In using the 30-year project life, the County recognizes that the residential and non-residential development

facilitated by the Project could continue to exist for more than 30 years. During and after the 30-year project

life period, the Project would be subject to a range of existing and future regulatory standards and policies

applicable to the built environment. Indeed, California is expected to implement numerous additional

policies, regulations and programs to reduce statewide emissions to achieve the GHG reduction goals of

SB 32 and EO S-3-05. The County has exercised its discretion to determine that a 30-year project life is

reasonable and supported by the substantial evidence discussed below.

Also of note, in a decision issued on December 19, 2018 (see Friends of the Santa Clara River et al. v.

County of Los Angeles [Case No. BS 170568]), the Los Angeles County Superior Court found that a 30-

year period for the mitigation of operational GHG emissions via carbon offsets is supported by substantial

evidence. The Superior Court cited evidence in the record of proceedings before it concerning reasonable

scientific limits; the parameters of available modeling tools; the changing regulatory structure and post-

2050 uncertainties; and, the use of the same temporal period by other expert agencies, including CARB and

SCAQMD, as well as multiple CEQA lead agencies. The referenced decision is included in Attachment

RO6.1 of these Responses to Comments. While the Superior Court’s decision in that matter is not citable

precedent in a legal context, was appealed and is currently being considered by California’s Second District

Court of Appeal, Division Five (see Case No. B296547), the petitioners in that case have not challenged

the Superior Court’s decision relative to any GHG issues, including the 30-year mitigation period. A copy

of the subject decision also is included in Attachment GR.R1.1 of these Responses to Comments. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. D075478)

also affirmed the County’s use of a 30-year period in the Supplemental EIR’s carbon offsets mitigation

measure for its Climate Action Plan, explaining that the 30-year period was disclosed and substantiated by

cited air district guidance.

In summary, and in accordance with the authority established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a)(1),

the choice of a 30-year project life is consistent with established modeling frameworks used in CEQA

analysis and the available scientific and evidentiary information. Each of these five grounds independently

substantiates the 30-year period set forth in mitigation measure M-GHG-3. They provide the substantial

evidence needed for the County to develop project-specific methods in accordance with CEQA Guidelines

Section 15064.4(a)(1). Given the use and endorsement of a 30-year project life method by multiple experts

in the field (i.e., CARB, SCAQMD, the County of San Diego, and other lead agencies and GHG

consultants), as well as the speculation required to estimate post-2050 GHG emissions and the embedded

conservatism of the Project’s GHG emissions inventory data, the 30-year mitigation period is appropriate,

reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence.

Scientific Attributes of GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change

While the EIR’s recommended mitigation framework includes a locational preference criterion, the County

also notes that GHG emissions result in a global, cumulative impact. This has been acknowledged by the

California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. California Department of Fish and

Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204. In that decision, the Supreme Court stated that:

“First, because of the global scale of climate change, any project’s contribution is unlikely

to be significant by itself … With respect to climate change, an individual project’s

emissions will most likely not have any appreciable impact on the global problem by

themselves, but they will contribute to the significant cumulative impact caused by

greenhouse gas emissions from other sources around the globe … Second, the global scope

of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, once




released into the atmosphere, are not contained in the local area of their emission means

that the impacts to be evaluated are also global rather than local.”

The County also notes that, unlike criteria pollutants where individual districts are characterized by varying

levels of pollutant concentrations and source types, GHGs and their attendant climate change ramifications

are a global problem (CAPCOA 2008). Climate change is a global phenomenon in that all GHG emissions

generated throughout the earth contribute to it; the action of GHGs is global in nature, rather than local or

regional (or even statewide or national) (CAPCOA 2008). Thus, it logically follows that mitigation for

such impacts also does not depend on – and need not take place – where the GHG is emitted. Indeed,

following citation to the California Supreme Court’s Center for Biological Diversity decision, the Fourth

District Court of Appeal’s decision in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. D075478) expressly

recognized that, because of the science of global climate change, “reducing or eliminating GHG emissions

anywhere is a benefit.”

Former Board Supervisor Roberts made this same point during the February 14, 2018 Board hearing

regarding the CAP:

[GHG] is not the same as air quality. Air quality is a localized issue … But fundamentally,

[GHG] is different. If I can reduce [GHG] emissions on the North Pole, then just as good

for the planet. It doesn’t make a difference. I need to be able to verify that I’m actually

getting real reductions. Don’t know that there’s many emissions on the North Pole, so it’s

probably not a good example, but I keep hearing it’s got to be done in San Diego County.

The priority should be get it done, period. If we can go to Imperial County and we can

develop a [carbon offset] program with people – the farmers in Imperial County, do it. As

long as it’s verifiable, we can certify, and we can – we know it’s sustainable.

(Transcript of February 14, 2018 Board of Supervisors meeting, pages 125-126.)

Accordingly, geographical limits to mitigation options do not align with the science and understanding of

GHGs and the global, cumulative nature of GHG emissions. When considered in relation to the state of

climate science, one metric ton of GHG emitted in San Diego, California has the same impact on global

climate change as one metric ton of GHG emitted in London, England. Likewise, the elimination of one

ton of GHG in London (or anywhere else in the world) produces the same mitigation benefit locally as the

elimination of one ton of GHG in San Diego. As all GHG emissions generated throughout the earth

contribute to climate change, a reduction in GHG emissions on earth would offset the generation of GHG

emissions and their contribution to climate change regardless of geographic location.

Although the science of global climate change establishes that the geographic location of an offset is not

relevant to the effectiveness of the reduction, as updated in EIR Section 2.10, neither mitigation measure

M-GCC-7 nor mitigation measure M-GCC-8 permit the Project to use international offsets to reduce its

GHG emissions. Instead, the updated “Locational Performance Standards” in those two mitigation

measures have been narrowed to prohibit the use of international offsets; the measures exclusively permit

the use of in-County, in-State and in-U.S. offsets. Further, based on the County’s review of the protocols

applicable to carbon offset project types in California and the United States (see M-GCC-7 Attachment

“A”), the County has determined that the protocols contain sufficient verification and enforcement avenues

for the registries to ensure that the carbon offset project developers comply with each standard’s protocols.

If compliance is not demonstrated, based on each registry’s evaluation and as informed by the independent

third party’s verification report and statement, then the registry will not issue carbon offsets for retirement.




Implementation of Feasible Project Design Features Prior to Reliance on Carbon Offsets

Some comments state that the proposed Project should include additional project design features and

incorporate other mitigation measures before relying on the purchase of carbon offsets to reduce GHG

emissions. The County does not concur for the following reasons.

To begin, CEQA provides lead agencies with discretion to formulate feasible mitigation measures for the

reduction of GHG emissions. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c) addresses the mitigation

of GHG emissions and provides a non-exclusive list of potentially feasible mitigation concepts for

consideration by lead agencies and project proponents. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c) does not

establish a hierarchy of allowable mitigation options – there are no limits imposed on the geographic or

locational attributes of the mitigation options, and there is no imperative to secure additional on-site

reductions before utilizing carbon offsets.

As background, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c) was adopted by CNRA at the conclusion of the

rulemaking processes mandated by SB 97 (Dutton, 2007; see also Pub. Resources Code, §21083.05) and

became effective in March 2010. On page 50 of the CNRA’s Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory

Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Pursuant to SB 97 (December 2009), CNRA expressly rejected invitations to establish any sort

of mitigation hierarchy for GHG emissions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c):

“Several comments, for example, suggested that the Guidelines provide a specific

‘hierarchy’ of mitigation requiring lead agencies to mitigate GHG emissions on-site where

possible, and to allow consideration and use of off-site mitigation only if on-site mitigation

is impossible or insufficient. OPR and the Resources Agency recognize that there may be

circumstances in which requiring on-site mitigation may result in various co-benefits for

the project and local community, and that monitoring the implementation of such measures

may be easier. However, CEQA leaves the determination of the precise method of

mitigation to the discretion of lead agencies.”

When discussing how local governments can support climate action through CEQA, on page 102 of

California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (November 2017), CARB “recommends that lead

agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from VMT, and direct

investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and

economic co-benefits locally.” On that same page, CARB recognizes that “[w]here further project design

or regional investments are infeasible or not proven to be effective,” it also “may be appropriate and feasible

to mitigate project emissions through purchasing and retiring carbon credits.” As such, much like the

framework established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c), CARB recognizes the utilization of a

portfolio-based approach in the development and selection of feasible mitigation measures for the reduction

of GHG emissions, while simultaneously recommending the prioritization of GHG emissions-reducing

strategies in a project’s vicinity due to the corresponding economic and air quality co-benefits. Consistent

with this, as discussed above, CARB does not mandate that AB 900 projects limit their utilization of offsets

to those that have a local origin.

Here, the proposed Project would utilize a portfolio-based approach that includes on-site EDCs and on-site

mitigation measures to reduce Project emissions by approximately 15 percent and, to achieve net zero

emissions, carbon offsets. The on-site EDCs and on-site mitigation measures considered in Section 2.10,

Global Climate Change, of the 2019 Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR include:

• An EDC to prohibit wood-burning fireplaces and only permit natural gas fireplaces;




• An EDC to provide curbside recycling in residential and non-residential development areas;

• An EDC to implement the Water Conservation Plan, which would reduce outdoor water usage by

30 percent when compared to existing outdoor water usage for typical residential homes;

• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (M-GCC-1);

• Beyond code, high-efficiency lighting in multi-family homes and non-residential buildings (M-

GCC-2);

• EnergyStar appliances in multi-family homes and non-residential buildings (M-GCC-3);

• Zero Net Energy single-family residences (M-GCC-4);

• Beyond code building design efficiencies in multi-family homes and non-residential buildings (M-

GCC-5); and,

• Zero emission vehicle charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential areas (M-GCC-6).

The EIR conservatively accounts only for GHG emission reductions that are readily quantifiable, even

though all EDCs and mitigation measures – whether or not strictly quantifiable – are required. Thus, it is

notable that the EIR likely underestimates the amount of GHG emissions reductions achieved by the Project

with its internal, on-site GHG-reducing strategies.

In summary, this approach to GHG reduction and mitigation strategies results in net zero GHG emissions

through enforceable tiers of reduction strategies. The Project firstly would implement feasible EDCs and

mitigation measures to avoid GHG emissions on-site, along with transportation features to reduce vehicle-

related emissions. However, it is not possible or feasible to reduce GHG emissions to net zero using

exclusively on-site reduction strategies. The proposed Project – like all residential development –

necessarily results in carbon emissions associated with construction activities and the existence of future

residents. On-site design features can minimize these associated GHG emissions through built-in energy

efficiencies and designs that shift transportation decisions, but these designs cannot reduce construction

emissions and each future residence’s carbon footprint to zero. Carbon offsets are, therefore, a critical tool

to create offsetting reductions off-site where various factors otherwise prevent reduction activities.

Accordingly, to reduce GHG emissions to net zero, mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 would

require the Project to purchase carbon offsets reducing emissions to net zero. As discussed above, carbon

offsets are effective wherever the offset project is located because the environmental consequence of GHG

emissions is not localized. Nevertheless, the mitigation measures impose locational prioritization standards.

Under M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8, the locational standards would be implemented and enforced at the

implementation stage because it is not practical to pre-determine the availability of offsets from each

location; offset projects are being continuously developed and may arise between Project approval and

implementation. Further, while these locational standards are not scientifically necessary to the

effectiveness of the mitigation and are not otherwise mandated, the EIR recommends them and they help

support local offset projects to the extent they are feasible and available. This strategy to mandate offsets

from expanding locations in tiers ensures that all feasible measures are used to satisfy the proposed Project’s

commitment to net zero.

The Use of Carbon Offsets Is Not Inconsistent with the County’s General Plan

Commenters have questioned whether the proposed Project’s use of carbon offsets that are not associated

with San Diego County-based, offsets-generating projects is consistent with the County’s General Plan, and

specifically Goal COS-20 and Policy COS-20.1 therein. However, as provided below (and as discussed in

Appendix E-1 of this EIR, which contains a tabular assessment of the Project’s consistency with the




General Plan), the proposed Project’s mitigation framework is consistent with the General Plan because it

reduces Project-related GHG emissions beyond a level necessary to align with the statewide reduction

targets established by AB 32 and SB 32.

As background, the subject Goal and Policy are set forth below, with underline/strikeout text used to

illustrate the modifications to the subject text made by the County in concert with its February 2018

adoption of its Climate Action Plan (see Global Response: County of San Diego Climate Action Plan).

Goal COS-20 (Governance and Administration)

Reduction of local community-wide (i.e., unincorporated County) and County Operations GHG

greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change that meet or exceed requirements of the

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as amended by Senate Bill 32 (as amended, Pavley.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit).

Policy COS-20.1 (Climate Change Action Plan)

Prepare, maintain, and implement a climate change action plan with a baseline inventory of GHG

emissions from all sources; GHG emissions reduction targets and deadlines, and environmental

GHG emissions reduction measures. Climate Action Plan for the reduction of community-wide

(i.e., unincorporated County) and County Operations greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.

As to Goal COS-20, the Goal envisions a reduction of GHG emissions associated with activities within the

County’s control (community-wide activities and County operations). The Goal does not specify how

reductions must occur, prohibit certain types of reduction strategies, or mandate project-specific reduction

requirements. For the reasons discussed above, and below, an offset is an effective method to reduce GHG

emissions contributing to global climate change.

Instead of placing limits on GHG reduction tools, Goal COS-20 and Policy COS-20.1 more plainly express

the County’s commitment to reduce GHG from emissions-generating activities under the County’s

jurisdiction (i.e., those activities located in the unincorporated areas and those activities associated with

County government operations). Goal COS-20 and Policy COS-20.1 also express the County’s

commitment to reduce emissions at a level that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Global Warming

Solutions Act (AB 32), as amended by SB 32, which, together, establish statewide GHG reduction targets

for 2020 and 2030.

Significantly, Goal COS-20 is expressly linked to the operative legislation for the establishment of

statewide GHG reduction targets – AB 32 and SB 32.32 The County purposefully linked its Goal to this

legislation to ensure it would have all tools available from the State to reduce GHG emissions. One such

tool is the use of offsets. Consistent with the referenced legislation, numerous State laws and policies

support the use of out-of-County offsets, examples of which are summarized in abbreviated form below:

• CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(c), developed in concert by the California Natural Resources

Agency and Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, allows for the use of offsets to mitigate

32 Policy COS-20.1 is intended to “assist the County as it makes decisions relating to each goal and indicates a

commitment by the County to a particular course of action.” (General Plan, page 1-5.) As such, like Goal COS-20,

Policy COS-20.1 should be interpreted and implemented via reference to the cited legislation.




GHG and imposes no geographic hierarchy or restrictions on available GHG mitigation tools.

• CARB most recently recommended the use of offsets as a potentially feasible mitigation measure

for project-level CEQA analysis in Appendix B of its 2017 Scoping Plan, which was developed

and approved by CARB in furtherance of attaining SB 32’s 2030 statewide reduction target. While

CARB expressed a preference for in-State reduction opportunities, CARB – the State agency

responsible for California’s climate change laws and policies – does not impose hardline

geographic limitations on the tools and methods for reducing GHG emissions.

• CARB has determined that AB 900 projects (which are designated “environmental leadership

development projects” under CEQA and subject to judicial streamlining (see Pub. Resources Code,

§§21178-21189.3)) can achieve the statutorily-mandated no net increase GHG level through the

purchase of offsets without imposing rigid, quantitative limits on the locational attributes of such

offsets. While more recent AB 900 projects have committed to a preference for local reduction

opportunities (using verbiage similar to that used by the County), no quantitative mandates are

associated with that preference and the ultimate portfolio of procured carbon offset credits is

subject only to feasibility principles. (See EIR Appendix C-26, Survey of Local Performance

Standards Used by AB 900 Projects, for additional details on CARB’s standards.)

• AB 32 and SB 32, as codified in the Health & Safety Code (see, e.g., Health & Saf. Code,

§38505(k)), specifically support the use of market-based compliance mechanisms, such as

transactions in offsets. As such, in promulgating its Cap-and-Trade Program for stationary sources

under AB 32, CARB allows regulated entities (which typically are large stationary source emitters,

like fuel refineries) to achieve a portion of their GHG reductions through the use of non-local

offsets. The compliance offsets issued by CARB under the Cap-and-Trade Program are located

throughout the United States, as illustrated by CARB’s issuance map.33

• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, with the support of CARB, approved the Newhall

Ranch project, which relies on non-local GHG reduction opportunities to achieve net zero GHG

emissions from a large-scale (more than 20,000 residential units and 9 million square feet of

nonresidential development) planned community.

The interpretation of the General Plan offered by some commenters is unsupported by a plain reading of

the Goal, is not consistent with the intent of the County (including its Board of Supervisors) when

developing and adopting the Goal and is not scientifically supportable given the global nature and

implications of climate change. If the County had intended to mandate only local reductions be used as

CEQA mitigation measures, the Goal would have mentioned CEQA and read: “Local reduction of …;” but,

it does not.

Particularly in the scientific realm of global climate change, such an interpretation of the Goal is over-broad

and unsupported. In fact, both COS-20 and the 2011 GPU EIR mitigation specifically refer to AB 32, the

Global Warming Solutions Act, and global warming in general (2011 GPU EIR pages S-20, 2.17-1 et seq.,

and 7-80; 2011 GPU pages 5-31-33, 38). Further, GHG emissions are a global, cumulative impact, as

discussed above.

33 CARB’s compliance offsets issuance map is available at https://webmaps.arb.ca.gov/ARBOCIssuanceMap/

and depicts the location of carbon offset projects administered pursuant to the CARB-approved regulatory protocols

for the Cap-and-Trade Program.

https://webmaps.arb.ca.gov/ARBOCIssuanceMap/




An interpretation of Goal COS-20 that requires exclusively local reductions also is not consistent with

CARB’s California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (which recognizes and affirms the use of

nonlocal reduction opportunities) or its review of AB 900 projects (which have not been conditioned to

mandate the exclusive use of local reductions), the Cap-and-Trade Program (which allows regulated entities

to achieve a portion of their GHG reductions through the use of non-local offsets), the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s approval of the Newhall Ranch project (which also relies on non-local

GHG reduction opportunities to achieve net zero GHG emissions), and the policy principles of the Kyoto

Protocol (which encourage the investment of GHG reduction programs in developing nations).

The Goal must also be read in the context of the policies that guide its implementation. As background, the

relationship between Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures is described in the County of San Diego

General Plan on pages I-5 and I-6:

• Goals describe ideal future conditions for a particular topic, such as town centers, rural character,

protection of environmental resources, traffic congestion, or sustainability. Goals tend to be very

general and broad.

• Policies provide guidance to assist the County as it makes decisions relating to each goal and

indicates a commitment by the County to a particular course of action. The policy is carried out by

implementation measures. While every effort has been made to provide clear and unambiguous

policies, the need for interpretation will inevitably arise. The authority of interpretation lies with

the County and will be enacted through its implementation measures and decisions. Therefore, the

Implementation Plan should be reviewed for a complete understanding of each policy.

• Implementation Measures, adopted by the County in a separate Implementation Plan, identify all

the specific steps to be taken by the County to implement the policies. They may include revisions

of current codes and ordinances, adoption of plans and capital improvement programs, financing

actions, and other measures that will be assigned to different County departments after the General

Plan is adopted.

The General Plan’s policies, operating as policy guidance, guide the County’s policy efforts to achieve the

ideal future conditions envisioned in the goal. These policies frame the intent and vision for implementation

of a goal. For Goal COS-20, the General Plan does not set forth policies envisioning direct application to

individual projects, but rather policies envisioning changes to County operations and the creation of

applicable plans: Policy COS-20.1 directs the County to implement a Climate Action Plan; Policy 20.2

directs the County to establish and maintain a program to monitor GHG emissions from various sources for

a review of effective GHG-reducing strategies; COS-20.3 directs the County to coordinate with other

jurisdictions; and COS-20.4 directs the County to provide education and assistance on the importance and

approaches for reductions to GHG emissions.

These Policies are not applicable to individual projects (like the proposed Project). As to Policy COS-20.1,

it pertains to a jurisdictional responsibility of the County of San Diego and applies to the County’s

development of a Climate Action Plan. For the reasons set forth in Global Response: County of San Diego

Climate Action Plan, the proposed Project does not use, tier from, or rely on, the County’s 2018 Climate

Action Plan (or its mitigation), which is the subject of pending litigation. Regardless, CEQA Guidelines

Section 15064.4 does not require that the County use a climate action plan to evaluate the environmental

significance of a project. Rather than rely on consistency with a climate action plan as a significance criteria,

the analysis presented here conservatively treats any increase in GHG emissions as a cumulatively

considerable impact of the proposed Project, which is supported by the 2017 Scoping Plan. The proposed

Project is required to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant. As

discussed above, offsets are a feasible mitigation measure and therefore the County must require the Project

to purchase offsets under CEQA.




Subsequent to adoption of the County’s General Plan in 2011, and since 2013, the County has permitted

land use development projects to offset their GHG emissions by purchasing offsets.34 This practice was

followed when the Board approved the Soitec solar project (an AB 900 project) in February 2015; the Park

Circle, Sweetwater Place, and Sweetwater Vistas projects in the fall of 2017; and the Lake Jennings

Marketplace project in January 2018. These were not ad hoc decisions or applications of an unarticulated

policy. Rather, these project approvals demonstrate that the Board has consistently interpreted Goal COS-

20 and Policy COS-20.1, in their original form, to allow out-of-County offsets and intended that such

offsets be included in the array of GHG reduction tools available to the County.

In Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. D075478), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that

the Climate Action Plan was “not inconsistent” with the County’s General Plan. In reaching its holding,

the Fourth District considered the plain text of relevant General Plan goals and policies, the Climate Action

Plan’s framework for in-County reductions, and the science of global climate change (as discussed above).

Much like the Climate Action Plan’s approach, the Project first utilizes on-site, in-County reduction

strategies to mitigate construction and operational GHG emissions and secondarily pivots to off-site

reduction strategies in the form of carbon offsets in order to achieve the net zero reduction target. The

Project’s mitigation framework does not prohibit the use of registry-issued carbon offsets resulting from

off-site, in-County carbon offset projects– to the contrary, the mitigation measure would require their use,

if available at the time of need.

In any case, even if Goal COS-20 is erroneously interpreted as requiring reductions through local measures

only, the Project is consistent with the goal. As discussed above, the Project incorporates all feasible on-

site measures to reduce GHG emissions. After exhausting feasible on-site measures, the Project would have

GHG emissions that would be required to be offset. Mitigation measures M-GCC-7 and M-GCC-8 require

that the County and Project follow and enforce a geographic priority system with respect to the purchase of

carbon offsets, with the highest level of priority afforded to local offsets. As discussed above, this priority

system is enforced at the implementation stage based on the availability of offsets at that time. These

measures require the Project to exhaust all feasible and available offset opportunities from the higher

priority geographic category before utilizing offsets from the next category.

Thus, while this priority system is Project-specific and not otherwise mandatory, it is consistent with the

preferences expressed by some commenters to maximize localized reductions and local offsets. Further,

given that an infeasibility determination is necessary to utilize offsets from a lower locational priority, the

Project’s use of a lower locational priority beneficially replaces a determination that further mitigation is

infeasible.

In the context of global climate change, this structure provides the necessary hardline goal and policy

flexibility necessary to address the multi-faceted and inter-related tools to reduce overall GHG emissions.

Project-level consistency must accordingly be measured by the project’s consistency with the County’s

plans and operations as directed through General Plan Policies COS-20.1 through 20.4.

34 The County’s 2013 Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements

for Climate Change (“Climate Change Guidelines”) which expressly allowed offsets as mitigation for GHG impacts

and identified a number of County-sanctioned offset registries, all of which offer out-of-County, out-of-state, and

international offsets. Although the 2013 Climate Change Guidelines were later set aside as part of the 2012 CAP

litigation, they nevertheless demonstrate that the County, since at least 2013, intended to include out-of-County offsets

as one of the mitigation tools available to reduce GHG emissions within the County’s jurisdiction.

Documents

Village 13 Project’s Global Response R1: Carbon Offsets · 2020. 8. 18. · Global Response R1: Carbon Offsets This response addresses comments received on the 2019 Recirculated